Miami Lawyers Take Aim at Arms Dealer Who Allegedly Cost Client His Eye
"If there's a verdict in this case, everybody that imports these guns will know about it. And hopefully, they'll put into process the necessary safety procedures to prevent this from ever happening again," said Miami lawyer Gary Fox, representing a gun owner who lost his eye when an incorrectly labeled rifle exploded in response to the wrong ammunition.
July 16, 2019 at 05:13 PM
4 minute read
A products liability case against Florida-based arms dealer Century Arms Inc. could have a fallout that ricochets across the country, according to Miami plaintiffs lawyers Michael Levine and Gary Fox of Stewart Tilghman Fox Bianchi & Cain.
In September, Palm Beach Circuit jurors will decide whether Century Arms is liable for incorrectly labeling an antique military rifle that exploded in plaintiff James Fletcher's face because he'd unwittingly inserted the wrong ammunition.
As Century Arms is the largest manufacturer of assault rifles and the biggest importer of surplus guns in the U.S., Fox and Levine say they hope the lawsuit serves as a warning to other firearm companies about labeling standards.
“If there's a verdict in this case, everybody that imports these guns will know about it,” Fox said. “And hopefully, they'll put into process the necessary safety procedures to prevent this from ever happening again.”
The gun Fletcher bought was a Turkish 1890 Mauser 7.65 x 53mm caliber rifle, but it was stamped as being a Mauser Model 1898 8 x 57mm caliber rifle manufactured in Germany, according to the complaint. Fox and Levine claim that when their client fired the gun with the wrong ammunition, that caused an unintentional discharge, destroying Fletcher's right eye, shattering the bones in his face and injuring his right hand.
As that information was engraved onto the gun, there was “a ton of reasons to get this right,” the way Levine sees it.
It's the first time a gun owner has taken aim at an importer and labeler over such a mix up, according to Fox and Levine, so the case could pave the way for others like it. More than $10 million could be at stake, and Century Arms' integrity is on the line, the way Fox sees it.
“If people can't believe what's stamped on these rifles, then they're not going to sell many rifles,” Fox said.
Century Arms admitted the rifle was incorrectly marked but denied that it was to blame for the accident, arguing that the plaintiff should have properly inspected the rifle, safely handled and loaded it with the proper ammunition, as the company advises its customers to do. Century Arms has also claimed that Fletcher should have worn goggles to use the rifle, though Fox and Levine argue that wouldn't have protected his eye.
Lead counsel to Century Arms, Ryan Erdreich and Jeffrey Malsch of Pisciotti Malsch in New Jersey and New York declined to comment on the case. Local defense counsel are Amy Hurwitz, Jeffrey Cohen and Michael Sloan of Carlton Fields' Miami and West Palm Beach offices.
Few topics polarize the U.S. quite like gun control. And while lawsuits from parents of Parkland and Sandy Hook shooting victims seeking damages from gun-makers have proved controversial, Levine suspects this case is different.
“Universally, I think everyone would agree that if you're in the business of importing guns and selling guns, you want to make sure you're labeling them properly,” Levine said.
In Levine's view, jurors might also be surprised to know that one of the country's largest gun importers is on their doorstep.
The plaintiff, a Christian writer and essayist, originally filed the case in Arkansas, where he bought and shot the rifle. but Century Arms fought to move it to Palm Beach, closer to its Delray Beach headquarters.
Fox said he sees that as a good thing for his client.
“The wonderful irony of that is that Arkansas is a conservative, low-verdict area,” Fox said. “While Palm Beach County, Florida, is one of the highest verdict areas on the planet.”
Palm Beach Circuit Judge Jaimie Goodman is presiding over the case.
Read the complaint:
|Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
3 minute readFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250